The police want a copy of Dahua hard drive to investigate B&E

LittleBrother said:
Absolutely do not give video with audio. In basically all cases you shouldn't be recording audio outside of your house anyway, just to be sure you're legally compliant. I would give video from any of my cams to cops because I've already satisfied that setting up exterior cams to film my property are legally compliant even if they do happen to inadvertently capture off-property material. My neighbors' yards, for example, are captured on my cams, as is the street. Of course if my cams were focused directly on a neighbor's window that is a no-no.
Click to expand...

I disagree, it is better to KNOW the laws for your local then just putting a blanket no audio always policy in place. For example here in Tennessee we have the one party consent rule for audio, in short this allows the recording of audio as long as one person consents to it (and that includes you).

I record the audio on ALL my outside cameras and have provided these recordings to police when asked, and the audio portion has been used by police/prosecuters. In fact the audio on one recording I gave was a significant help in one of the cases.

You should check what is acceptable in your local because if you are allowed to record audio you should - it can be very helpful at times (especially with gun shot sounds).
 
Zxel said:
I disagree, it is better to KNOW the laws for your local then just putting a blanket no audio always policy in place. For example here in Tennessee we have the one party consent rule for audio, in short this allows the recording of audio as long as one person consents to it (and that includes you).

I record the audio on ALL my outside cameras and have provided these recordings to police when asked, and the audio portion has been used by police/prosecuters. In fact the audio on one recording I gave was a significant help in one of the cases.

You should check what is acceptable in your local because if you are allowed to record audio you should - it can be very helpful at times (especially with gun shot sounds).
Click to expand...
One part consent applies to one party of two, generally with a phone call. It does not mean that simply because one person is aware of a recording (wouldn't this always be the case?) that they can record everybody. I'm fairly sure that if your microphone is recording conversations of people walking up your street, irrespective of one-party laws, you're in violation. I'm not positive, but if that's the case it seems like it would be legal for me to record anything anywhere because I'd always be aware of it, and that can't be right. I'm in a one-party state, too :)
 
LittleBrother said:
One part consent applies to one party of two, generally with a phone call. It does not mean that simply because one person is aware of a recording (wouldn't this always be the case?) that they can record everybody. I'm fairly sure that if your microphone is recording conversations of people walking up your street, irrespective of one-party laws, you're in violation. I'm not positive, but if that's the case it seems like it would be legal for me to record anything anywhere because I'd always be aware of it, and that can't be right. I'm in a one-party state, too :)
Click to expand...

You are right about the law generally applying to phone conversations (because there was none of this at the time the law was created - it was meant to apply to phone calls and wiretapping), however, you are wrong in your assumption of how the court sees a owners camera recordings and the example given is incorrect. I can (and have) provided video with audio to police for events not on my property. The sidewalk is considered my property - i.e. if it cracks guess who has to pay to fix it? If someone slips and hurts themselves on the sidewalk guess it is who they sue? The answer to both questions is ME - the owner of the property. Even if you think the sidewalk is public property I am still considered by the court to be a party to it - i.e it is in a public place and the cameras do not record any sound I could not hear from my own property, even if it is accross the block - I know this because of a recent case the police used my videos for (a shooting).

To be sure this stuff is very local dependent, since the laws on the books where never meant to apply to camera recording by fixed security cameras. It all comes down to how your local interprets the laws currently on the books - and the results vary considerably even though the law may be the same in different locals - the courts have a way to go before all this is ironed out (think appelate courts).

I talked to a few police officers and lawyers I knew to make sure this was going to be OK when I first set these cameras up and in MY local it is not a problem. If you are concerned about this check with the police and a few lawyers in your area (I suggest at least one prosecutor be in that mix) to be sure.
 
Zxel said:
You are right about the law generally applying to phone conversations (because there was none of this at the time the law was created - it was meant to apply to phone calls and wiretapping), however, you are wrong in your assumption of how the court sees a owners camera recordings and the example given is incorrect. I can (and have) provided video with audio to police for events not on my property. The sidewalk is considered my property - i.e. if it cracks guess who has to pay to fix it? If someone slips and hurts themselves on the sidewalk guess it is who they sue? The answer to both questions is ME - the owner of the property. Even if you think the sidewalk is public property I am still considered by the court to be a party to it - i.e it is in a public place and the cameras do not record any sound I could not hear from my own property, even if it is accross the block - I know this because of a recent case the police used my videos for (a shooting).

To be sure this stuff is very local dependent, since the laws on the books where never meant to apply to camera recording by fixed security cameras. It all comes down to how your local interprets the laws currently on the books - and the results vary considerably even though the law may be the same in different locals - the courts have a way to go before all this is ironed out (think appelate courts).

I talked to a few police officers and lawyers I knew to make sure this was going to be OK when I first set these cameras up and in MY local it is not a problem. If you are concerned about this check with the police and a few lawyers in your area (I suggest at least one prosecutor be in that mix) to be sure.
Click to expand...
Even if you were technically breaking the law I doubt cops who are getting your free video of a crime are going to pursue you.

In my case, I have no sidewalk and the street is definitely public.

You may be right, though. I am not positive that audio recorded of regular stuff outside is illegal in a one-party state and in my case it was of so little value (e.g. most cameras don't have mics anyway) that I didn't pursue it thoroughly.

I agree certainly none of this is totally ironed out. Even recording of cops has not yet hit SCOTUS for a final ruling (I suspect they will agree with an earlier finding by one of the state courts that it is legal). Technology tends to change faster than laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zxel
LittleBrother said:
I am not positive that audio recorded of regular stuff outside is illegal in a one-party state and in my case it was of so little value (e.g. most cameras don't have mics anyway) that I didn't pursue it thoroughly.
Click to expand...

This is why talking to the local police/prosecutor/lawyer in your locale is advised if there is any doubt. :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chust
Followed this thread since started.

Couple of thoughts have run through my small bean and thought I'd throw them out there.

Firstly the recording in question is outside the home, different municipalities have different ordinances regarding this, step one for me would be a clarification on what is legal for me to record and go forward from that point.

Secondly, I agree that any help I can offer to catch these felons would be to my advantage (as long as I myself would not be held accountable for any crime in doing so)

Thirdly, I would not give up any of my equipment unless that course was initiated via search warrant and confiscation order in accordance to law.

Lastly, I think, would be cooperation with law enforcement within the boundaries of the law would keep me safe from any obstructing justice or aiding and abetting charges they might feel necessary.

I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night but my security system was installed shortly after my residence was burgled back in '08. I have spent some time making sure that my behind is covered with what is legal for me to do and what is not.

(Break into my home while I'm here, first the dog gets a treat then I blow you full of holes, lots of them until I no longer feel threatened)
(Break in while I'm not here like the last time and I'll have picture and video evidence that more than likely can't be tampered with)
 
Daffy said:
(Break into my home while I'm here, first the dog gets a treat then I blow you full of holes, lots of them until I no longer feel threatened)
(Break in while I'm not here like the last time and I'll have picture and video evidence that more than likely can't be tampered with)
Click to expand...
Did you have a dog last time? I don't have one, but good sized dog can be quite a deterrent, depending on temperament!
 
LittleBrother said:
Did you have a dog last time? I don't have one, but good sized dog can be quite a deterrent, depending on temperament!
Click to expand...

wish I had one when this recently happened to me. I would have loved to sneak up behind them and bash their head in but instead we just yelled and they ran. We have a large dog now so hopefully that helps keep the baddies out.

and the cameras and the alarm system..i'm counting on them all.
 
NetWorker said:
wish I had one when this recently happened to me. I would have loved to sneak up behind them and bash their head in but instead we just yelled and they ran. We have a large dog now so hopefully that helps keep the baddies out.

and the cameras and the alarm system..i'm counting on them all.
Click to expand...
Stick a large sign on your yard that says "My dog has anger issues and a biting problem"
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetWorker and Zxel
LittleBrother said:
Did you have a dog last time? I don't have one, but good sized dog can be quite a deterrent, depending on temperament!
Click to expand...

Or you can just have 8 medium sized dogs. :)

To be sure even little dogs can make noise and alert and/or scare off an intruder, however, a pack or large dog will certainly be a good deterent when nobody is home to hear them alert. There is literally a dog in every room in my house - even if you got past the outside dogs you'd have a big suprise when you opened a room door (and that would be something fun to watch on the camera recording - lol) and was immediatly attacked by a dog. :D
 
Zxel said:
Or you can just have 8 medium sized dogs. :)

To be sure even little dogs can make noise and alert and/or scare off an intruder, however, a pack or large dog will certainly be a good deterent when nobody is home to hear them alert. There is literally a dog in every room in my house - even if you got past the outside dogs you'd have a big suprise when you opened a room door (and that would be something fun to watch on the camera recording - lol) and was immediatly attacked by a dog. :D
Click to expand...
More people should consider dogs for home defense. They really have an awful lot of benefits that are often overlooked. Even compared to a person with a pistol by their bed the dog is on watch when you're not home, plus even when you're asleep it might perk up at unusual sounds and alert you. I have some old cats and a fish now for home defense! Fish moves around wildly when it is hungry, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zxel
vector18 said:
Just upload the video to a windows movie maker, mute the audio, save the video, burn it onto a DVD, and your done. They will only want originals if there was a major crime and a criminal case in court. More than likely, the cops just want to see the video just to help them out.
Click to expand...
This is the answer to give.

I would just give them video, if you don't they will seize your nvr and give it back at their leisure.
 
The audio on my cameras outside captured the sounds of gunshots. It was disputed how many shots were fired during the altercation (which happened like 2,000 feet away) But with my audio, it proved how many shots were fired without question.

1 party consent state here also for audio recordings.
 
LittleBrother said:
Even if you were technically breaking the law I doubt cops who are getting your free video of a crime are going to pursue you.
Click to expand...

One would think so, but I wouldn't put it past some. It wouldn't be the first time I've heard of someone trying to help the cops and getting themselves in trouble on an unrelated issue.

Ultimately, I think a lot would depend on:

A. The personality of the specific cops/police department reviewing the material
B. The seriousness of the crime that your video shows YOU doing
C. The seriousness of the original crime that your video is helping with and how much your video helps.

For example, if the cops viewing the video (or the police dept. in general) are a bunch of jerks looking for an excuse to punish someone, then you could have trouble.....If your video clearly shows you doing drug deals in your yard, they'd be more likely to come after you than if your video shows you not using a turn signal to turn into your driveway when no other cars are in sight.....If your video helps solve a murder, they may be more lenient to your own minor crime in the video than if your video was only used to catch someone trespassing.
 
Git said:
I read a news report about the Police Officer Shooting in Illinois which made me think of this thread

“Homeland Security has got advanced equipment,” Filenko said. “This video in particular is on a particular type of hard drive that they have the technology to retrieve it off of.”

www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/03/police-may-have-video-illinois-cop-killers/
Click to expand...
hehe, I guess it depends what they mean by retrieve, but it sure sounds mystical ;)

I agree with him about the quality of some people's systems, though. I would hazard to guess most people on this forum have cameras with better definition than the bulk of commercial installs.
 
Well the article is quoting a Police Commander - I would venture to guess he does not have much of a technical background. I can't think of any system that would record to anything other than a hard drive. It would be just a matter of having the proper software and access to the original drive. They are not going to want to deal with a copy or export. The original is always the 'best evidence'
 
For the death of a 32 year veteran officer I'm sure they would replace the hard drive on your nvr if they took.yours for evidence.
 
pal251 said:
For the death of a 32 year veteran officer I'm sure they would replace the hard drive on your nvr if they took.yours for evidence.
Click to expand...

No, they won't. That is just wishful thinking. IF, the HDD is seized, which would be what happens when they know you have evidence and refuse to give it up, then they hold on to that evidence FOREVER. It goes into an evidence box that gets stashed as a matter of public record, just in case some yahoo wants to challenge the subsequent trial and findings based on the evidence in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: solidstate
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom